God love ya, Fran. Great post. On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:35 PM, frantheman <[email protected]>wrote:
> > I've spent a while going back and forth on the different posts rapidly > coming in on this subject to try to find one that gives me a relevant > "in." Not easy! ... > > I have the feeling that there's a tendency to reduce this to a > meaningless "either-or" debate here. Even you, Molly, my dear, seem to > be getting yourself caught in a kind of "dualistic" thinking, which > isn't normally your style, if I may so so. > > Those who've been around here longer know that I would tend to situate > myself more at the empirical-rationalist end of the spectrum of views > we have here - yet I feel that people whose thinking direction goes > more Molly's way make some valid points when it comes to the very > complex question of what we call health. But then comes the tendency > to put this directly into opposition to what conventional medical > science teaches. > > I've chosen Molly's post because of her question/statement: "Are you > saying that the chemistry drives the emotion? Because I think it is > the other way around ..." People, people, this is the core of the > argument in one sense, and it's what I call meaningless "either-or." > In fact it's both. Emotion drives chemistry drives emotion drives > chemistry ... etc. A real chicken-egg question. > > We are complex psycho-somatic unities. Everything is connected to > everything else, everything influences, through complicated causal > chains, everything else. Medical science knows loads about how things > work and go wrong in all sorts of areas and what can be done to fix > things. No question. There are also areas where medical scientists > freely admit to being in situations analogous to medieval > cartographers, using "here be dragons" descriptions. There are areas > where medical science has a pretty complete picture of how things > work, go wrong, and what can be done to treat pathological situations > - the heart/circulatory system and its functions and malfunctions is > one good example. There are areas where medical science is at a much > more primitive level of trial and error (as rigsy points out) - I'm > thinking of the brain/central and vegetative nervous system here. But, > even here, everything is connected to everything else and, to give but > one example, beta-blockers, one of the most important groups in > treating cardiac and circulatory disorders, also have significant > effects in the neuro-/psychological area. > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_blocker) > > One of the major lessons conventional medicine needs to learn from > various alternative views is the importance of context. What I mean by > this is that the entire, holistic situation and environment of a > patient can have major positive or negative effects on healing > processes, particularly because, as Allan points out, so much medicine > is involved in providing vital support for the organism to heal > itself. After 20 years as a health professional, I believe that > increased attention to this on the part of doctors and clinics (from > the way they encounter, listen to, and interact with their clients > through their organisational structures all the way to architectural > questions) would increase their efficiency and success significantly. > > On the other hand, alternative methods which claim efficacy or > advantages with respect to conventional evidence should be prepared - > to state it bluntly - to put up or shut up. In one area, where this > has been done, homeopathy, to give one example, has come out pretty > badly: > > http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67177-2/fulltext > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy > > One of conventional medicines great advantages is the fact that it > bases itself on the scientific method, involving such concepts as > rigorous experimentation, testing, repeatability, grounding in immense > work in analysis of the composition and functioning of the human > organism. (If you apply x, in a situation y, z happens - over and over > again. In many cases it can also say; this is because of a, b, c and > d.) But any good medical professional knows that even the simplest of > human situations is so complex that it is never a 100% exact equation > - otherwise, patients wouldn't die or fail to heal in the predicted > fashion. In real life, there isn't always a House who comes up with a > successful, incredibly obscure diagnosis, and shit just happens. > Because every individual is just that, individual and - even in terms > of all modern diagnostic and therapeutic options - more complex than > our approximations can always deal with. > > One of the suspicious things about so many so-called alternative > methods offered is their - in my view - simplistic, big-picture > approaches. In questions of health, the big picture has an important > place, but so do the devils in the details. > > Personally, if I ever have a tumour diagnosed, I'll be going for the > chemo and radiation. However, I will also be aware that this involves > poisoning myself in the hope that the tumour dies before I do. And you > can bet that I'll be doing everything else possible, getting all the > help possible, to support myself in my psycho-somatic entirity so that > I actually do survive the experience! > > Francis > > > > On 5 Aug., 00:09, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > There is a link between neurochemistry and emotion, Chris, but the > > direction of cause is in dispute. Basically happy people have a > > balance in body chemistry that reflects that. Constantly angry people > > have a body chemistry that reflects that. Two different body > > chemistry balances in many ways. Are you saying that the chemistry > > drives the emotion? Because I think it is the other way around, and > > that we can learn to maintain emotional health just as we can learn to > > maintain physical health. > > > > On Aug 4, 5:38 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The reason I come back to injections, Molly, is because we know that > > > chemicals control moods, shape them. Seratonin, dopamine, oxytocin, > > > adrenaline...these are the building blocks of our emotions. Our moods > do not > > > create them...they would not exist without them. Outside stimulus will > cause > > > response, and with conscious effort, we can indeed learn to, in some > small > > > way, mitigate their production, but it is not circular to recognize the > > > causal nature of neurochemistry to mood. The injection experiment would > be > > > empirical proof of this; if your mood was capable of mitigating a > > > contradictory dosage of neurochemical cocktail, it would provide > scientific > > > evidence to support your statement. > > > > > But then, according to your post, this isn't about scientific facts, > this is > > > about individual truths (read: faith). > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Again, the which came first circular argument. I am not saying that > > > > neurochemistry does not exist, Chris, only that it is not the whole > > > > picture. And this is not the first time you have suggested that I > > > > inject something to prove your point (or Ian's). I guess you didn't > > > > understand my post above when I said that is up to YOU to prove to > > > > yourself, not me to prove to you. I have already proved it to myself. > > > > I have learned with much contemplation and self examination, to > > > > regulate my moods and emotional responses. You may take a pill to > > > > regulate yours, I don't know. As I say, to each his own. > > > > > > On Aug 4, 5:15 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It's easy enough to test your theory, Molly. I can inject you with > the > > > > > chemicals which WILL alter your mood, and you can attempt to combat > them > > > > by > > > > > willing your mood to change the chemicals. > > > > > > > How can the mood exist outside of the chemicals? The mood IS the > > > > chemicals. > > > > > Neurochemistry is not some dark and unexplored science. There is > much > > > > > research available. Here's a good start > > > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowTOC&rid=b... > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Molly Brogan < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > While chemical balance is one part of our "health," claiming that > it > > > > > > the entire picture is a very narrow focus. You seem to be > presenting > > > > > > the premise that our chemical balance produces our mood. I > suggest > > > > > > that our mood effects our chemical balance. Quackery and juju > works > > > > > > both ways, and simply can't get away with it anymore may also > apply to > > > > > > an outdated medical model. The paradigm of science itself is > > > > > > changing, although mainstream is slow to catch up. > > > > > > > > Orn, you did mean posters and not posers, I take it. Very funny. > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 4:32 pm, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The body can heal itself; this is not a revelation, it does > this > > > > > > > continuously, every day, with the production of new cells. The > > > > operating > > > > > > > factor and scope for variability, and there is only one, is the > > > > chemical > > > > > > > balance of the body in question. Mood is part of this. > > > > > > > > > Why try to dress this up with quackery and juju? You simply > can't get > > > > > > away > > > > > > > with it any more. > > > > > > > > > Ian > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
